I’m a nuclear fan myself, to an extent, but I don’t think we actually have near that much Uranium to use for fission, do we? I thought it was more like 100-150 years?
Lemur, I agree with you completely.
I am no fan of fossil fuels, and I eagerly await the day I can drive a hydrogen fuel-cell powered car, and collect hydrogen from my own solar powered electrolysis machine.
But I think imposing restrictions on fossil fuel use today, as proposed in the Kyoto Accords, just because our CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions MIGHT be warming the atmosphere is a very, very bad idea.
I’m not particularly against nuclear power, but don’t recall seeing any figures on it being less expensive than fossil-fuel generated power, at least at today’s prices.
Nuke plants are considerably more expensive to build, are they not?
I lived in France, where more than 60% of the country’s electricity is nuclear-generated, and my monthly electric bills were approx. twice the amount per KWh that they are here in the States.
I think there are some problems with this statement:
-
How do you go about “factoring out” El Niño? The phenomenon was wide ranging implications which, at present, are poorly understood. Please provide evidence or references on the efficacy of your chosen method of factoring it out.
-
El Niño is inextricably linked to the global climate, and therefore to any alleged global warming. It would be a fallacy to assert that El Niño should be discounted when considering climatic data, since El Niño is a part of the global climate. We cannot pick and choose years of climate data to use because they are “skewed” by a climatic phenomenon. If I chose to collect data on local rainfall, my results would be highly suspect if I discounted data that was “skewed” by the presence of clouds.
In summation: are surface temperatures higher in the Eastern Pacific region do to El Niño phenomena? Yes. Is there any technique that can “factor out” El Niño’s effect? I am not aware of any, and I am highly skeptical of the claim that there is, given that El Niño is not yet well understood. Can one in theory discount El Niño from climate data? No.
That should be “has” instead of “was” in my post above. My apologies for the confusion.
Nuke is still really cheap, the only thing that is pretty close is Wyoming subbituminous coal plants that are located close to the source.
Nuke plants are very expensive to build, but the cost of Fuel greatly outweighs the cost to build a power plant. And for nukes, Uranium is cheap, even including the cost of disposal. True, costs are steadily increasing for nukes, but they’re doing a pretty good job overall.
The situation in France doesn’t really have to do with their nuclear component - electricity from all sources is more expensive in the EC than in the US. French coal even is so expensive that the French government for a while was giving a $120 per ton subsidy to burn French coal? $120 per ton subsidy! In comparison, the most expensive delivered coal I’ve ever seen in the whole US was $62.50 per ton, and that was a very unusual case.
Oh, stop complaining about all of this Global Warming nonsense, you fools. Can’t you see? This is God’s excuse. Something similar
happened to the dinosaurs and this will be what finished us off. Who are you to challenge the almighty one?
Whilst strolling down Kensington High Street with some people(i shan’t name them), I observed the behaviour of the ordinary human being and you know what I concluded? Ah, perhaps evolution hasn’t died the death us arrogant humans thought it would. Do you really think it stops with us? well i have news for you, you refined sugar lumps - it doesn’t. Because upon observation, I noticed that human don’t walk properly. Indeed, you could put this down to the couching lifestyle of the,well…couch potato…but is everyone a couch potato?
no - for i am a carrot. Listen, everyone walk with a slight hunchback - very slight, but aha…i noticed it - why didn’t you, you fools?! -We are to evolve, and some of us have. The aliens are us, but we are not the aliens -as of yet. God’s purpose for us will be completed. All evil will be eliminated. And that means eliminating all of human kind. Goodbye. At least, the warming will give us nice tan,hey?
Kindly stop mentally peeing in our pool, CDM.
I ma posting an honest response to an honest question by someone i know. I can’t believe i am being rebuked -as jesus was - for having a mind which works differently…i promise you that this is the way i think…honest! now please - i would like a response from biffer. and i am not peeing.
Rocket88 - [
I lived in France, where more than 60% of the country’s electricity is nuclear-generated, and my monthly electric bills were approx. twice
the amount per KWh that they are here in the States.]
how much of that is (are?) taxes?
Wevets, Once again, I’m guilty of sacrificing clarity for brevity. I can remember my first boss out of college accusing me of being cryptic, when he meant terse.
I never meant to imply that the 98-99 El Nino should not be considered in any climactic study. I was simply pointing out that all of the atmospheric temperature increase in the last twenty years was caused by this one event. You can easily compare the 98-99 El Nino with the ’92 event to see that the one in 98-99 was anomalous in its magnitude. Was this anomaly purely random, or was it a wake-up call? Will future El Ninos grow progressively worse? We simply don’t know.
Peroration, nth verse:
Considering the depth of our ignorance in this subject, any precipitous action to reduce our CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions at this time would be foolhardy.
OK–forgive me, but I actually do this for a living (work on global warming issues) and I’d like to correct a few mistakes that have been mentioned:
- Greenhouse Effect is not just a myth or a popular term. It is a term that describes the warmth added to the Earth because of certain gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Without this our world would average about 34 degrees C lower than it is and we would probably not be here. Some other planets also have natural greenhouse effects. This phenomena is not in dispute, it is known to exist.
2)Global warming is a popular term for what is more correctly called climate change. Generally it is used to describe the suspected additional anthropogenic (or human induced) greenhouse effect caused by the large amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, PFCs and SF6 that have been added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Again, these concentration increases are known to exist from monitoring of atmospheric conditions both through direct readings at places like Mauna Loa and from studying other records (tree bores, ice cores, etc)
- SO2 is not considered a greenhouse gas. It is strictly regulated because of its contribution to acid rain and other air quality issues but is only related in that it is often produced in tandem with CO2 during combustion of fossil fuels.
4)The number of scientist who support that there is some type of anthropogenic climate change occurring greatly outweighs the number who oppose this theory. That is not to say that there is consensus on the extent and nature of this change. The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Chnage) convened by the UN and made up of leading scientists and experts from over 30 nations states “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate”.
Ok–now that I’ve gotten that squared away–I would also like to point out that the insurance industry already takes global warming very seriously and is greatly concerned about the possible increases in risks, premiums and claims due to weather related damage or health issues.
Also–the best reason for acting now is that the majority of measures proposed have significant benefits aside from climate issues. The best way to combat rising CO2 emissions is probably energy efficiency. This reduces our dependence on foreign oil, reduces emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxides, lowers particulate and volatile organic compound emissions (which cause smog) and saves money for whoever is implementing the efficiency measures. It also promotes development of efficient technologies which provides employment. (The same arguments can be used about most other proposed actions including development of renewable energy technology, promoting mass transit options, promoting alt fuel vehicles, etc.)
Of the states that have considered greenhouse gas action plans (25 currently completed or under way) each one that completed an economic analysis of the proposed actions found a net economic benefit to the state and a net job gain.
And now down to opinion. We know the greenhouse effect is real and what gases cause it. We know we are increasing the concentrations of those gases in the atmosphere. It’s not a big leap to think that one day all the crap we’re adding may have an effect on the world around us. I’d rather act now when things are still somewhat manageable than try and scramble for a fix in the future when it’s too late. Particularly when the costs of acting now are actually benefits.
Hey, coppertops! Forget about global warming, that’s not the real issue here. When Bill Gates turns his army of cyborgs against us and we have to block out the sun, that’s when the mayhem really starts.
“The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate”.
These unfortunate words are taken from the Executive Summary for Policymakers, which was attached to the IPCC Climate Change Report of 1995. This summary was added to the report after the scientists turned it over to the General Committee. The language in the report itself is a little different. For instance, the section titled Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes states, “Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on global climate.” The report then continues with an explanation of the uncertainties that remain, including feedback effects.
This paper by Dr. David W. Riggs states quite well problems with CCR-95:
http://www.amexp.org/quarterly/qjglobal.htm
Also note the number of signatories of Frederick Seitz’ letter of petition criticizing both CCR-95 and the Kyoto protocols. This is a significant body of the world’s climate scientists, and they are not in the pay of the oil companies. The petition is here:
Meanwhile, as the GCM’s are improved, the warming estimates decrease. The IPCC in 1990 predicted a 0.3[sup]o[/sup]C increase per decade. Just two years later, the IPCC lowered this estimate slightly after learning more about feedback effects. The IPCC’s 1996 estimates show an increase of 0.18[sup]o[/sup]C/decade. But these estimates are still way above current reality, which is 0.05[sup]o[/sup]C/decade.
Nor is this uncertainty, and disagreement among scientists limited to “ancient history”. CCR-2000 is due to be issued by November. I haven’t seen it, but my understanding is that they have given up trying to make any predictions, and are instead offering multiple scenarios ranging from “no effect” to an increase of 4[sup]o[/sup]C by 2100. IOW, “We don’t know.”
Also, a recent report by the U.S. National Research Council, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Panel on Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change (January 13, 2000), looked at whether the observed surface warming of the Earth (during the past 20 years) is real or an artifact of unreliable and inconsistent data. The report attempted to resolve disparities between temperature trends measured at the surface and upper air temperature trends from satellite data. Panel scientists concluded that there may be a systematic disconnect between the upper and near surface atmosphere and cited physical processes which may have an unique impact on the upper atmosphere that are not currently accounted for in GCMs. In addition they acknowledged much uncertainty about their findings and recommended consistent long-term monitoring of the upper atmosphere to explain the difference in temperature trend.
People have been predicting an enhanced greenhouse effect for 30 years now, and so far, it just hasn’t happened.
So show me the proof.
Show me how the 28% CO[sub]2[/sub] increase, which amounts to a 1% increase in total greenhouse gasses has raised the Earth’s temperature.
Show me that the Earth’s temperature has even risen.
Show me any increase in heat content, sensible or latent.
Meanwhile, the Fossil Fuels thread is saying that we will be out of oil and natural gas in the same time frame the IPCC is looking at. So where is all this new CO[sub]2[/sub] going to come from? Coal? The market will phase out oil as the price rises, and I say the sooner the better, for all the reasons stated by ASD, except global warming.
We will survive this century just fine without the hype and fear-mongering involved in the so-called debate about global warming.
[
And now down to opinion. We know the greenhouse effect is real and what gases cause it. We know we are increasing the
concentrations of those gases in the atmosphere. It’s not a big leap to think that one day all the crap we’re adding may have an effect on
the world around us. I’d rather act now when things are still somewhat manageable than try and scramble for a fix in the future when it’s
too late. Particularly when the costs of acting now are actually benefits. ]
ASD - you get paid for believing in global warming don’t you???
My opinion - I also want to act before it’s too late. We have to advance technology so we can leave earth before it burns up, runs out of raw materials and fuels, freezes or dries up
From this week’s issue of Science, vol. 289, no. 5485, p. 1743-1746:
I don’t have the citations handy, but there is also clear evidence of mountain glacier retreat in both South America and Europe. So there are most certainly data that point toward a warming of the earth’s climate.
There are really two separate questions in the global warming debate. The first purely scientific: what is the extent to which anthropogenic activities have contributed to warming, and what the future climatic effects of continued anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases. We cannot say that ALL of the current warming trend is the result of industrial-realted fossil fuel burning, because there are indications that a natural warming trend had begun prior to the Industrial Revolution. Nor can we determine with certain what the future effects might be, because there is still a lot we don’t know about climate forcing mechanisms and responses. These uncertainties mean that we need to do a lot more research, certainly, but at the same time IMHO it doesn’t mean that some clues can’t be gleaned from the data we already have in hand. My reading of the data suggests that some anthropogenic effect does exist; you might wish to reserve judgment until more results are in. That’s okay.
The second question is whether humans can do anything to deflect the current warming trend. This question is partly scientific, but is really dominated by political concerns. There are undoubtedly scientists who disagree with the Kyoto Protocol, but I think care needs to be taken to differentiate between disagreement on scientific grounds and disagreement on political grounds. No such distinction is made in the list of names on Frederick Seitz’s petition. (BTW, all the signatories are not climate scientists, but apparently include physicists, chemists, etc.)
I’m not overwhelmed by the arguments made in either of the links TNTruth posted, because the people involved are clearly very conservative politically and are not speaking from an objective standpoint. Dr. David Riggs is an economist with a conservative think tank (Center of the Ameican Experiment) in Minnesota; not surprising that he comes out against an anthropogenic contribution to climate change.
Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Science, is entitled to think that the jury is out on climate change based on available data. In my eyes, though, his credibility and appearance of scientific objectivity suffers greatly from his apparent affiliation with a group called the Oregon Insitute of Science and Medicine. The OISM (which provides the ersatz paper against climate warming in a link from the petition page), is itself an extremely conservative, privately funded group. In a link from that website, OISM head Arthur Robinson (lead author on the “paper”) promotes home-schooling “In order to take our country back from the secular humanists - back from those who have abandoned the Christian values and disciplines that made America great - back from the evil that is destroying our society…” :rolleyes: I must add that the “scientific paper” that the OISM provides is that in format only, because such an opinionated, selective interpretation of the data would never be accepted for publication by a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.
BTW, I find it curious that Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of the most outspoken critics of global warming scenarios in the past decade, has not himself signed the petition. If the signees are all so prominent and share his view, why hasn’t he affiliated himself with them?
My take on the climate change issue: The degree to which anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions contributes to overall warming is uncertain. The response is unclear. The things we can do to offset any possible human contribution to warming are also things that would improve the overall quality of our environment anyway, so we should bite the bullet and start making some changes in our emission patterns. And regardless of the ultimate forcings involved, earth seems headed toward an overall warmer condition that WILL affect us in the ways that Anthracite and Lemur866 mentioned, and we had better start figuring out how humankind will respond to change.
I mostly just skimmed over this thread, so I don’t know if the following two things have been mentioned yet:
-
The climactic changes caused by an increased greenhouse effect might be counteracted partially. Follow this line of logic: As the climate changes (if it does), the biggest differences cause would be a) more CO2 in the atmosphere, b) more melted liquid water on the planet and therefore higher humidity, and c) a warmer climate. All three of these factors are conducive to plant growth (we grow plants in man-made greenhouses some of the same reasons, right?). As these three factors increase, worldwide plant growth increases. This increased plant growth will remove much of the excess CO2 from the atmosphere; the lower level of CO2 means the greenhouse effect will be reduced, causing the temperatures to go down. The lowering temperatures will allow more ice to accumulate on the ice caps, lowering the ocean levels. Alternatively, this negative feedback loop might simply slow global warming. While this negative feedback loop wouldn’t protect us from all the effects of global warming, it would likely lessen the blow.
-
Instead of launching a solar shade, we could try a less expensive plan. Consider the following plan: We put a fine shiny metal powder in the jet fuel that commercial jets use. Whenever a plane is flying fairly high in the atmosphere, the shiny stuff from the fuel is ejected into the Earth’s upper atmosphere with the jet exhaust, an linger there for a while. If most of the jets in the world were to use this kind of fuel (we could have it legislated in many/most countries), then the shiny stuff would likely accumulate to the point that it would form an effective shade. It would almost certainly be cheaper than launching something into space, and more effective.
Oh, and by the way, someone mentioned that CFC’s are greenhouse gasses. While they are often referred to as such (they ARE bad for the ozone layer/environment), they do NOT contribute to global warming.
That was me on the CFCs, I was using the US Inventory of Greenhouse Gases while I was listing types of gases and typed that too quickly without thinking about it (they explain the difference between CFCs and HCFCs and I was skimming and typed both). Especially embarassing since I get aggravated by the common misconceptions that the ozone layer problem causes global warming!
And now that I’ve completely destroyed my credibility…
I never stated that I thought that there was no uncertainty associated with the global warming debate. I stand by the assertion that the IPCC found that the balance of evidence indicates some anthropogenic influence on climate. The fact that the quote I used comes from the executive summary doesn’t diminish the fact that that was a major conclusion. Hmm–maybe they chose to put it in the summary because it was a tidy wrap-up of what the presented elsewhere in the report? TNTruth–I fail to see how the quote you used contradicts the one I used.
k2Dave–I don’t believe in global warming because I get paid to. I chose to work in the field after getting BS and MS degrees in scientific disciplines in which I studied the issue and determined that I thought it was a significant possibility. I’m qualified to work in any number of other positions–my paycheck is not exclusively linked to working on climate change issues.
And where exactly do you propose we leave Earth for after we’ve exhausted for our convenience what used to be a replenishable system?
Uncertainty will always exist in any scientific discipline. That is not an excuse for continuing irresponsible behavior–especially given the co-benefits of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are constantly learning new things about medicine–does that mean that no one should go to a doctor until we have all the complexities of the human body figured out? The same goes for physics, chemistry, botany, biology, etc, etc. It would be nice if we could base our policy decisions on black and white information but sometimes you have to look at shades of gray.
Max, ASD, I’m a bit confused about your statements that CFCs have no greenhouse effect. I have several references that refer to just such an effect, especially for CFC-11 and CFC-12 (14,000X and 17,000X the radiative power of CO2, respectively), because they absorb strongly in the 8-12 micrometer range of the longwave spectrum. Can you clarify this for me?
Max, there are some additional complicating items that need to be considered as part of the climate warming scenario you described.
-
Increased CO2 is good for some plants, not all. While certain types of plants (those that use the C3 metabolic pathway for photosynthesis) respond favorably to increased CO2, other plants (C4 plants) show little or no response. It’s possible that you’d have a boom in plant growth, but that ecosystems would change dramatically as vegetation types shift; plus different vegetation types respond differently as absorbers of incoming solar radiation. Net warming or cooling effect of vegetation change is not clear; more likely to be a sink, but perhaps concurrent with other deleterious effects.
-
True, a warm atmosphere can hold more water, which increases the absorption of heat in the lower atmosphere. At the same time, more water vapor means more clouds at various elevations and latitudes. These clouds may trap heat in the troposphere by reflecting it back toward the ground, but at the same time the clouds reflect solar radiation back into space, before it can impart any heat. The net warming effects of various types of clouds are not really understood at this point; this is one of the biggest obstacles climate modelers have in running computer simulations. Net warming or cooling effect of increased water vapor is not clear.
-
Don’t forget that even as more moderate northern climates permit more types of vegetation to expand poleward, low latitude regions will become increasingly dry and incapable of supporting agriculture. The final trade-off in terms of whether we’d end up with a larger or smaller carbon sink as warming proceeds is not clear.
-
As far northern latitudes warm, there’s a good chance that they will become sources of CO2 rather than sinks. At present, there appears to be a large quantity of methane stored in gas hydrates within the permafrost of the north. A warmer climate will destabilize the hydrates and release methane, which is approximately 23X more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Given current estimates of the volume of gas hydrate available it’s not likely that northward-expanding vegetation will be a large enough sink to counteract the methane release = probable increased warming.
These items illustrate pretty well, I think, some of the uncertainties involved with future climate prediction. Yes, it means there’s a lot of work still to be done on understanding how climate changes on human time scales, and what the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide are. That’s still different from straight observations of warming or cooling, and right now I’d say the available data still point toward warming.
Global temperature’s have risen something like .8 degrees F over the last 100 years. I am not sure if that constitutes proof that “global warming” is real.
If it is real, there are many problems to come, and too much water is only one of them.